Wind Power Exposed: Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas

energy tribune ^ | Nov 25 2008 | staff

[saganite]

This is not what President-elect Barack Obama's energy and climate strategists would want to hear. It would be anathema to Al Gore and other assorted luminaries touting renewable energy sources which in one giant swoop will save the world from the “tyranny” of fossil fuels and mitigate global warming. And as if these were not big enough issues, oilman T. Boone Pickens’ grandiose plan for wind farms from Texas to Canada is supposed to bring about a replacement for the natural gas now used for power generation. That move will then lead to energy independence from foreign oil.

Too good to be true? Yes, and in fact it is a lot worse.

Wind has been the cornerstone of almost all environmentalist and social engineering proclamations for more than three decades and has accelerated to a crescendo the last few years in both the United States and the European Union.

But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.

Independent reports have consistently revealed an industry plagued by high construction and maintenance costs, highly volatile reliability and a voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies. Such is the economic strain on taxpayer funds being poured into wind power by Europe's early pioneers -- Denmark, Germany and Spain – that all have recently been forced to scale back their investments.

As a result this summer, the U.K., under pressure to meet an ambitious E.U. climate target of 20 percent carbon dioxide cuts by 2020, assumed the mantle of world leader in wind power production. It did so as a direct consequence of the U.K. Government's Renewables Obligations Certificate, a financial incentive scheme for power companies to build wind farms. Thus the U.K.'s wind operation provides the ideal case study -- and one that provides the most complete conclusions.

The U.K. has all the natural advantages. It is the windiest country in Europe. It has one of the continent's longest coastlines for the more productive (and less obtrusive) offshore farms. It has a long-established national power grid. In short, if wind power is less than successful in the U.K., its success is not guaranteed anywhere.

But wind infrastructure has come at a steep price. In fiscal year 2007-08 U.K. electricity customers were forced to pay a total of over $1 billion to the owners of wind turbines. That figure is due to rise to over $6 billion a year by 2020 given the government's unprecedented plan to build a nationwide infrastructure with some 25 gigawatts of wind capacity, in a bid to shift away from fossil fuel use.

Ofgem, which regulates the U.K.'s electricity and gas markets, has already expressed its concern at the burgeoning tab being picked up by the British taxpayer which, they claim, is “grossly distorting the market” while hiding the real cost of wind power. In the past year alone, prices for electricity and natural gas in the U.K. have risen twice as fast as the European Union average according to figures released in November by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 15 percent energy price rises were experienced across the E.U., in the U.K. gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7 percent. Ofgem believes wind subsidy has been a prime factor and questions the logic when, for all the public investment, wind produces a mere 1.3 percent of the U.K.'s energy needs.

In May 2008, a report from Cambridge Energy Research Associates warned that an over-reliance on offshore wind farms to meet European renewable energy targets would further create supply problems and drive up investor costs. No taxpayer respite there. But worse news was to come.

In June, the most in-depth independent assessment yet of Britain's expanding wind turbine industry was published. In the journal Energy Policy gas turbine expert Jim Oswald and his co-authors, came up with a series of damning conclusions: not only is wind power far more expensive and unreliable than previously thought, it cannot avoid using high levels of natural gas, which not only it will increase costs but in turn will mean far less of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has been claimed.

Oswald's report highlights the key issue of load factor, the actual power generated compared to the theoretical maximum, and how critical it is to the viability of the wind power industry. In 2006, according to U.K. government statistics, the average load factor for wind turbines across the U.K. was 27.4 percent. Thus a typical 2 megawatt turbine actually produced only 0.54 MW of power on an average day. The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 percent. These figures reflect a poor return on investment. But this poor return is often obscured by the subsidy system that allows turbine operators and supporters to claim they can make a profit even when turbines operate at a very low load factors. So what’s the bottom line? British consumers are paying twice over for their electricity, funding its means of production and paying for its use as end users.

Variability is one of the chief criticisms levelled at wind power. When the wind drops or blows too hard, turbines stop spinning and you get no power. Wind turbine advocates have claimed that this can be avoided by the geographical spread of wind farms, perhaps by creating an international “supergrid.” But, as Oswald's report makes clear, calm conditions not only prevail on a fairly regular basis, they often extend across the country with the same conditions being experienced as far away as France and Germany. Worse still, says Oswald, long periods of calm over recent decades occurred in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

Periods of low wind means a need for pumped storage and essential back-up facilities. Oswald told The Register online news service that a realistically feasible U.K. pumped-storage base would only cope with one or two days of low winds at best. As regards back-up facilities, Oswald states the only feasible systems for the planned 25 gigawatt wind system would be one that relied equally on old-style natural gas turbines. As Oswald says however, the expense of a threefold wind, pump storage and gas turbine back-up solution "would be ridiculous."

The problems don’t end there. The British report highlights what more and more wind farms would mean when it came to installing gas turbine back-ups. "Electricity operators will respond by installing lower-cost plant ($/kW) as high capital plant is not justified under low utilisation regimes."

But cheap gas turbines are far less efficient than big, properly sized base-load turbines and will not be as resilient in coping with the heavy load cycling they would experience. Cheaper, less resilient plants will mean high maintenance costs and spare back-up gas turbines to replace broken ones that would suffer regular thermal stress cracking. And of course, the increasing use of gas for the turbines would have a detrimental effect on reducing carbon dioxide emission – always one of the chief factors behind the wind revolution.

Oswald's report concludes also that the all this wear and tear will further stress the gas pipeline network and gas storage system. "High-efficiency base load plant is not designed or developed for load cycling," says Oswald. Critically, most of the issues raised in the independent report have not been factored into the cost of wind calculations. With typical British understatement, Oswald concludes that claims for wind power are "unduly optimistic."

We think they've been blown away.

[saganite]

Some common sense commentary about wind power.

[Tarpon]

If wind power were useful, the world would run on wind — And not hot air.

[saganite]

Note. The full title is: Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas.

I edited it to fit the parameters of the posting requirements and still keep the meaning of the article’s title intact.

[xcamel]

Also..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2138870/posts

[saganite]

Blame it on the search engine at FR. I did a search on the title and nothing showed up.

[Balding_Eagle]

What I don’t quite understand is how ethanol as fuel is jumped on and derided (properly) here ar FR, yet these wind power threads are met with a yawn.

At one time each consumer would elect to use wind power generated electricity, but no more, now we are all FORCED to buy this junk.

My own electric bill has gone up at least 10% over this junk, and I’ll wager that’s generally true all accross the country. That’s far more costly than ethanol ever has been.

[saganite]

ping

[saganite]

“While 15 percent energy price rises were experienced across the E.U., in the U.K. gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7 percent. Ofgem believes wind subsidy has been a prime factor and questions the logic when, for all the public investment, wind produces a mere 1.3 percent of the U.K.’s energy needs”.

This quote from the article backs up your observation. Also, Obama has promised the most aggressive cap and trade scheme out there while at the same time promising that energy rates will necessarily soar. The left is fully aware of the consequences of their energy policy but it’s about ideological purity, not efficiency.

[rockinqsranch]

Windmill produced sources of power have been around for Centuries. Were it an efficient, effective alternative to Fossil Fuels the Free Market would have developed it further as Fossil Fuels have always been more costly. The Free Market has not developed it for good reason. Inefficient, and insufficient.

[rockinqsranch]

Windmill produced sources of power have been around for Centuries. Were it an efficient, effective alternative to Fossil Fuels the Free Market would have developed it further as Fossil Fuels have always been more costly. The Free Market has not developed it for good reason. Inefficient, and insufficient.

[G Larry]

Another very recent study cited the impact of off shore wind turbines to the marine life.
The distortion to air flow over the ocean surface, disturbs the patterns of thermal currents and very small marine life, which in turn impact all of the larger, dependent marine life.

[gusopol3]

gosh, I wonder why it was in “chat?” It doesn’t seem like chat to me.

[SteamShovel]

Wind Power Exposed: Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas

Among other things, wind power lacks one characteristic for being economical, that is economics of scale for each unit of generation.

Conventional steam and gas generating units come in large sizes, say 100 MW and larger. Build it stout and reliable and keep it on-line. It pays for itself by using affordable fuel and generating with large MW-Hour maintenance intervals.

Wind power doesn't come with a single windmill in 100 MW and larger sizes. Despite having free fuel, the MW-Hour maintenance interval is comparatively small, and the generating equipment is exposed to high winds, rain, hail, and lightning.

[Spok]

“Wind Power Exposed: Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas”

But it makes the idiots on the left feel good, which is what it’s all about.

[FrankR]

I think the best guideline to adopt would be, "Whatever the left is pushing, we avoid it at all costs, because it can't be good.".

I heard a guy on the radio yesterday saying that he priced out "wind power" for just his house, and the basic cost of $50,000.

Now, I don't know how many "windy days" he has a year, but I'm just gonna take a wild stab and guess that it's going to take a loooonnnnnggggg time to recoup his $50 grand.

Like they said, we don't have an alternative energy source yet that will do the job. Nothing yet to replace oil.

The one big "tell" I've notice from the left is, THEY are not doing anything to save oil. The politicians - even algore - all fly around in private jets and ride in motorcades of limos and SUV's. They live in LARGE houses that use more water and natural resources that any 5 of the typical home.

What is that?

They want to spred misery equally to everyone except themselves...anyone who doesn't see that (uh...media, are you listening?) should be swinging from the trees in Africa looking for a banana to eat...'cause Darwin ain't finished with you yet.)

It's really simple. Oil is power. You control the oil, you control the world. We see it everyday, as with the help of the enviro-nuts, we've relinquished that power to the mideast, and we live according to their 15th century whims.

Meanwhile, we sit on enough oil, gas, and coal in the United States to get us by for hundreds of years - until a technology allows us to actually come up with an alternative to those fuels.

We need to stop looking at what we want to happen in this country, and take a close look at what IS happening. Of course we're not using our resources, they are in a "lockbox savings account" for the new world order, whoever that will wind up being in the end. They are safe, in the ground, under forbidden soil, waiting for the victors...and to the victors go the spoils.

So as far as wind power goes, our future is just blowing in the wind if we're waiting on THAT solution - ya hear that T. Boone? T. Boone reminds the of the guy that came up with the new coolant and then convinced the world that Freon was killing the planet so we'd better convert to his stuff. Or the cereal companies who started the egg/cholesterol scare so we'd eat more cereal.

Follow the money.

[farfromhome]

“highly volatile reliability”

Fortunately, I have my enviro-weasel to English dictionary handy. This means unreliable.

[sionnsar]

Thanks for posting this. Some excellent material in this.

[glock_fan]

These wind farms are hideous to look at. There is a huge one covering the hills of Altamont Pass in CA. The same liberals who rail against hillside development have nothing to say about these useless eyesores.

[SouthTexas]

T. Boone reminds the of the guy that came up with the new coolant and then convinced the world that Freon was killing the planet so we'd better convert to his stuff.

DuPont?

[nathanbedford]

Obama has promised the most aggressive cap and trade scheme out there while at the same time promising that energy rates will necessarily soar. The left is fully aware of the consequences of their energy policy but it’s about ideological purity, not efficiency.

Worse, we do not know what "ideological purity" means. Does it mean only the reduction of carbon emissions? The ultimate control of global warming? The diminishing of climate change? Or even, a goal having nothing to do with ecology: the socialization of all industry and commerce?

If the object is the last, the left dares not articulate it. If it is only the reduction of carbon emissions, eventually it will have to explain why we must do that. It is the control of global warming, the left must in fact demonstrating that the Globe is warming. It is the elimination or reduction of climate change, the left must show that such a massive warping of forces predating history will for some reason now bend to man's will. Probably the left will choose all but the Marxism goal as justification. No matter, the debate will have opened and the stakes will no longer be theoretical but very financial and very immediate. The justifications, whichever is advanced, will remain remote and theoretical.

Of course the left is not a monolith. There are many useful idiots who actually believe in global warming and do not know what the game really is. Most of our well-meaning citizens who voted for Obama are utterly oblivious that there is a serious argument that the elites on the left deliberately exploit the idea of global warming for furtive Marxist ends. Heretofore, merely raising the specter of Marxism exposed the right to charges of neo-McCarthyism. But now the folks will soon be financially threatened and, like the prospect of hanging, that will wonderfully focus their attention. The closer Obama comes to doing "good" the more that people will recognize the harm.

Whether the motivations of the left in socializing virtually all of American industry and commerce are benign and grounded in "science" or nefarious and cynical, they open themselves up to counter arguments about the science, economics, the practicalities, and their motivation as they move to advance every step. When the question becomes disputable in the public mind and mothers fear their babies going without food in a time of economic crisis just so a bunch of left-wing eco -nuts can play God, their wrath will know no bounds.